ECOLOGIST INVESTIGATES
doing the right thing
If we hope really hard maybe things will get better – or maybe it’s
time to consider a new plan of action. Michael Nelson and John
Vucetich propose a virtuous approach to environmental change
abandon
hope
I
t’s a troubled world, and motivating
people to take action to live
sustainably is a difficult task.
Barack Obama’s campaign during
last year’s US presidential election
brought into the spotlight the role of hope as
a critical – even ‘audacious’ – motivator. But
can hope really help motivate and solve
unprecedented social and environmental
problems? Or is hope a placebo, a distraction
merely sowing the seeds of disillusionment?
Consider what may be the environmental
message of our time, Al Gore’s An
Inconvenient Truth. There is no doubt that
the film and book are convincing, and offer
good reasons for why we should change our
relationship with nature: global climate
change is real, humans are to blame and
human society needs to change radically to
stand any chance of averting the worst of
this crisis. But its reasons for why I should
change my relationship with nature are
weak: if I live sustainably, and others do
the same, then there is reason for hope
for averting environmental disaster.
An Inconvenient Truth fails the obstacle
presented by all ‘Tragedies of the Commons’
(when individuals acting independently in
their own self-interest ultimately destroy a
shared resource). In this respect the role of
hope is more profound, misplaced and
detrimental than is initially apparent.
32 March 2009 ECOLOGIST
32-35 Mar Hope - ER 32
In an interview on US National Public Radio
following the release of his popular book
Collapse, Jared Diamond spent 53 minutes
of the 55-minute interview explaining
why and how our current relationship with
the environment makes us dangerously
vulnerable to environmental disaster. At this
point the interviewer asked Diamond whether,
in the face of this dreadful fact, he is hopeful.
Diamond quickly said yes, and supported his
answer briefly with the observation that
sudden and unexpected changes in human
behaviour sometimes occur, and tragedies are
sometimes averted. Then the interview ended.
An Inconvenient Truth, Diamond’s response
and our instinctive relapse to the ‘we can’t give
up hope’ mantra, all mistakenly assume that
‘hope for a sustainable future’ is an adequate
reason why each of us should change our
relationship with nature. But these are
examples of a profound mistake that rises
from our inability to understand the proper
roles of hope and ethics in environmentalism.
Hope as dis-ease
Even in mythology, the role of hope is
contestable. According to the Ancient
Greeks, Pandora, sister-in-law of fire-thieving
Prometheus, was burdened with a dowry
that Zeus instructed remain unopened.
Curious Pandora opened the jar, however,
and the scourges of humanity – Greed,
Vanity, Slander, Envy, Pining and other
dis-eases – were swiftly released. Before it
could escape, however, Pandora quickly shut
the jar and Hope was left behind. Was the
failure to obtain Hope Zeus’s final sadistic
revenge on Prometheus and the humanity
he aided and abetted, or, as some scholars
believe, was Hope – in Greek, translated as
‘anticipation of misfortune’ – itself an evil;
a dis-ease that Pandora’s speedy jar-closing
skills spared humanity?
Since the late 1960s, we have been
continuously and increasingly exposed to
messages about our common environmental
crises: global climate change, massive loss of
biodiversity, air and water pollution, habitat
destruction, ozone holes…
Notwithstanding the extent to which we
have all been desensitised, little reflection
is necessary to appreciate the profundity
of these messages and the seeming
hopelessness of it all. Our impact on the
planet is indisputably unprecedented. Just
as unprecedented is the continuous and
convincing broadcasting of this message of
hopelessness to entire generations of citizens.
Jane Goodall’s A Reason for Hope and Bill
McKibben’s Hope, Human and Wild are
conspicuous reactions to these messages,
emphasising and reinforcing the need to
remain hopeful. Hope is treated as a prime
motivator and a fundamental virtue for
www.theecologist.org
5/2/09 18:20:27
illustration: getty images
environmental ethics. Hope is expected to
encourage behaviours that – if they gather
enough critical mass – might avert profound
environmental disaster. Hope for a sustainable
future is supplied as the fundamental reason
for why I should change my relationship with
nature: if I live sustainably, and others do the
same, there is hope – and one should never
give up hope – that we will avert
environmental disaster.
Hope may, however, ironically, deteriorate
motivation to live sustainably: I have
little reason to live sustainably if the only
reason to do so is hope for a sustainable
future. Why? Because every other message I
receive suggests that disaster is guaranteed,
and the reasons to think that if I live
sustainably enough others will do the same
are unconvincing.
But isn’t attacking hope as mean-spirited
as stealing Tiny Tim’s crutch? Wouldn’t you
just as readily choose hell over heaven as
abandon hope for… what? Despair?
It’s an understandable objection, but
‘Hope is seen as a prime motivator
but it may, ironically, deteriorate
our motivation to live sustainably’
www.theecologist.org 32-35 Mar Hope - ER 33
misplaced. For example, what about the
young man who hopes to become a pro
basketball player, neglects his education and
never makes it to the NBA? Or the terminally
ill patient who hopes to mend broken
relationships and do what she always wanted
to do, but postpones these activities because
she hoped to live? These people were hopeful
(i.e. believed in a certain outcome) when they
should have merely acknowledged their
unfulfilled desire. The failure to distinguish
between hope and desire in cases like these
is not merely delusional, it is detrimental.
It is true that, sometimes, unexpected
fortune is realised mysteriously or
inexplicably when a person is hopeful – the
cancer patient may suddenly go into
remission. Even in the realm of social
behaviour, unexpectedly good circumstances
arise. For example, attitudes about smoking
ECOLOGIST March 2009 33
5/2/09 18:20:40
ECOLOGIST INVESTIGATES
doING ThE rIGhT ThING
To hope or not to hope?
ACTION
WHAT WE HOPE WILL HAPPEN
HOPE’S UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES
VIRTUOUS ACTION –
THE ALTERNATIVE
Reduce,reuseand
recycle(R3)
R3giveshopeforasustainable
future,butonlyifmostother
peoplerecycle.
HopegivesmelittlereasontoR3;
Idon’tbelievemyactionswillresult
inasustainablesocietybecausetoo
fewothersR3.
Theneedsanddesiresofother
humansandnon-humansoutweigh
theplanet’slimitedresources.
Reducing,reusingandrecyclingare
kindsofsharing;itisvirtuousto
shareevenifnobodyelsedoes.
Reducefossil-fuel
consumption
Youshouldreduceyourfossil-fuel
consumptionbecausedoingso
giveshopeforpreventingworsened
climatechange,butonlyifmost
otherpeoplereducetheiruse.
Hopegivesmelittlereasontodo
thisbecausethereisgoodreason
toexpectworsenedclimatechange
regardlessofwhetherIreduce
fossil-fuelconsumption.
Drivingless(andwalkingmore)
promotespersonalhealth.Warswill
be(andarebeing)foughtoveroil.You
shouldreducefossil-fuelconsumption
becauseitisinherentlyvirtuousto
promotepersonalhealthandnotwar,
evenifnobodyelsedoes.
Reducerelianceon
productsthatuse
pesticides(e.g.buy
organic)orotherwise
needlesslydestroy
habitat
Youshouldreduceyouruseofsuch
productsbecausedoingsogives
hopeforavertingcatastrophic
environmentaldegradation,butonly
ifmostotherpeopleactsimilarly.
Hopegivesmelittlereasonto
reducerelianceonsuchproducts;
catastropheshouldbeexpected
becauseothersarenotactingas
youareaskingmeto.
Youshouldreduceyouruseofsuch
productsbecauseitisinherently
virtuousnottoruinresourcesthat
othersneed,evenifyouaretheonly
onetorefrainfrombeingruinous.
Beanenvironmental
activist
Youshouldbeanenvironmental
activistbecausedoingsogiveshope
forasustainablefuture,butonlyif
youractivismchangesthelivesof
enoughotherpeople.
Hopegivesmelittlereasontobean
environmentalactivistbecause
otheractivistsdonotseemtobe
changingthelivesofenoughothers,
whyshouldIexpectmyactivism
todoso?
Youshouldbeanactivistbecauseit
isinherentlyvirtuoustoshowothers
whatcountsas,andhowtolive,a
virtuouslife.Doingsoisvirtuous
evenifyouractivismchangessome
people,butnotenoughtoavert
futuredisaster.
in the US changed suddenly and unexpectedly
in the late 1980s. So, miracles and unexpected
good fortune occurs from time to time. Fine.
But is this good reason to think that if we
continue destroying our environment, we can
expect (hope) that things will mysteriously
work out okay?
A profound contradiction
It could be that this is all obnoxiously
Cartesian; that we are disregarding the real
effects of the human spirit and attitude on
the physical world. We know anecdotally and
scientifically that positive attitudes promote
human health: calm attitudes reduce blood
pressure, which reduces risk of heart disease.
Scientists have discovered that meditation
can cause cancer remission, due to the mind’s
influence on the immune system. Hopeful
attitudes certainly inspire some of us to live
at least a bit more sustainably. However, with
the same certainty, we know that hope does
not inspire most of us to live sustainably.
What we need are environmental leaders
with whom their presumed target audience –
those who are not living sustainably – can
empathise. Like it or not, deserved or not,
many such individuals are unsure about how
environmental leaders differ from authorities
such as presidents who lie about reasons for
war, or cardinals who turn a blind eye to
paedophilic priests.
To this audience, environmental leaders
deliver an incredible message, in three parts:
1) scientists give good reasons to think
profound environmental disaster is eminent;
2) it is urgent that you live up to a
challengingly high standard – sustainability;
and 3) the reason to live sustainably is that
doing so gives hope for averting disaster.
The most conspicuous element of the
message received may be its apparently
profound contradiction – be hopeful in a
hopeless situation. Given a predisposition
‘If hope for averting environmental
disaster isn’t the right reason to
live sustainably, what could be?’
34 March 2009 ECOLOGIST
32-35 Mar Hope - ER 34
to mistrust authorities, such contradictions
justifiably elicit mistrust. Environmental
leaders need to employ motivators for living
sustainably that do not appear contradictory,
and that do not require trust, but that are
self-evident. Mere hope will simply not do.
When hope is controversial – as it has
been since Pandora’s jar – the environmental
leader’s most effective strategy is to provide
a self-evident motivation. But if hope for
averting environmental disaster isn’t the right
reason to live sustainably, what could be?
Vicious or virtuous?
If ‘not being hopeful’ really meant being
in despair, then giving up hope may be
unacceptable, if not incomprehensible.
This ontology gets it all wrong, however.
Consider again athletes who really have
no chance of winning a competition. Do
they all really hope to win? Probably not.
Might not some athletes – those with realistic
expectations and honour – compete simply
because the virtue and rightness of the
activity (competing) is more important than
any particular outcome (winning or losing)
– which is not entirely within the control of
the athlete? The athlete is not hopeful, nor is
she in despair. She competes simply because
she believes it is virtuous to compete.
The assumption that despair is the
necessary and unacceptable B-side to hope,
www.theecologist.org
5/2/09 18:22:21
and that the hope/despair dichotomy
captures the sum of all ethical motivators,
shows a preoccupation with the consequence
of our actions over and above the inherent
virtue of our actions. It also suggests a
preoccupation with judging the rightness of
an uncontrolled circumstance rather than
judging the rightness of one’s own actions.
Such preoccupations diminish the value
and role of ethics in environmental problemsolving because there is something futile and
morally vacuous about judging the rightness
of the circumstances in which others
involuntarily find themselves.
In contrast, judging the rightness of one’s
own actions, given one’s circumstance, is a
wholly ethical activity, and perhaps the whole
of ethical activity.
The 19th and 20th centuries were like no
other in human history, not so much because
of advances in technology, the advent of
industrialisation or global environmental
crises and warfare, but because of the
dominating influence of an odd form of ethics.
Up until that, a phenomenon known as
the Enlightenment Virtue Ethics, and
healthy ecosystems, dominated the western
world. Since the mid 19th century, however,
Utilitarianism has permeated nearly every
aspect of our lives – why we pick the jobs we
do, our laws and policies, and even what
counts as having lived a good life.
Utilitarianism holds that moral actions are
those whose future consequences are good,
inasmuch as they produce the most utility,
happiness or pleasure for the most people.
So we’ve built a society fixated on the future,
perpetually risking all the attendant problems
of justifying means by their ends, and forever
flirting with endorsing the hedonistic
instincts of the masses.
Even though the ethical tyro knows
that morality depends on motivations,
Utilitarianism, oddly, has not the least
interest in motivation. Utilitarianism’s
fixation with the future requires a means for
judging the future; in this way hope, despair
and Utilitarianism are entwined.
Our preoccupation with the future at
the expense of concern for the present is a
hallmark distinguishing the Modern West
from non-Western cultures and even from
its own moral history. Twenty-three hundred
years ago Aristotle worked out many details
of what we now call Virtue Ethics, which
holds that ethical people are those who
appropriately manifest virtues such as respect,
humility, empathy, sharing and caring.
We usually think hope is a salve; the Greeks
thought hope was a scourge. The Greeks had
a proclivity for judging the virtue of present
actions, and hence considered hope just
another way of being preoccupied with the
future and thus a distraction from morality.
www.theecologist.org
32-35 Mar Hope - ER 35
We, however, have a proclivity for judging
the utility of future outcomes, and thus we
sanctify hope. From this sanctification we
even develop odd beliefs about how hope can
affect the future.
Doing the right thing
The notion that being hopeful is not
unconditionally virtuous, and can, at times be
delusional is oddly juxtaposed with a Christian
view of hope that dominates the Western
mindset: the more hopeless the circumstance,
the more unconditionally virtuous it is to be
hopeful. But Christian hope has nothing to do
with the welfare of life on Earth; it refers to
‘hope in eternal life in heaven’.
If we find it difficult to believe that hope
is sometimes vicious, it may be because
the modern secularist has inherited, with
remarkable transformation, the Christian
view of hope. Like a moth to the flame, the
modern secularist is drawn to unconditional
hope. However, the environmental secularist’s
hope is earthbound and concerns a future over
which they have little control. It is difficult
to conceive of a more tragic transfiguration
of the Christian conception of hope.
Instead of hope we need to provide young
people with reasons to live sustainably that
are rational and effective. We need to equate
sustainable living, not so much with hope
for a better future, but with basic virtues,
such as sharing and caring, which we already
recognise as good in and of themselves, and
not because of their measured consequences.
Living by such virtues is a fundamentally
right way to live – even if nobody else does
and even if it might not avert environmental
disaster (see table, opposite page).
Relating sustainable living to virtues such
as caring and sharing has other important
benefits. First, it can motivate sustainable
living in people who do not even believe we
are on the verge of environmental disaster.
One only needs to understand that a less
disparate distribution of wealth requires
more sharing (rather than more extraction).
Second, it clarifies the connection between
environmental and social problems – a
connection that many people fail to grasp.
There is a desperate need for
environmental educators, writers,
journalists and other leaders to work these
ideas into their efforts. We need to lift up
‘Instead of hope we need to provide
young people with reasons that are
rational and effective’
There is one point where the narrative
in An Inconvenient Truth touches on this
moral truth. Gore tells us that after his sister
Nancy died of lung cancer, his father stopped
farming tobacco not because he hoped that
his actions would have some impact on the
future, but because it was the right, or the
virtuous, thing to do. Evidence about future
effectiveness was an irrelevant, even
inappropriate, consideration. So, it is ironic
that Gore boldly and correctly insists that
global warming is a moral issue, yet his
reasons for why we should live sustainably
are, in the end, morally vacuous: if you live
sustainably, and others do the same, there is
hope – and one should never give up hope –
that we will avert environmental disaster.
Inspire by example
This is no neo-Stoic attempt to abolish
emotion. Emotions are essential for a
healthy ethic. Consider, for example, sadness.
Environmental abuse is a sad circumstance.
If you love the environment, to respond with
sadness is virtuous and can inspire care.
examples of sustainable living motivated
by virtue more than by a dubious belief
that such actions will avert environmental
disaster. Without such examples, one is
justified – sadly so – in being hopeless
about one’s future as a virtuous person.
If they do, there may be legitimate reason
to hope for a better relationship between
society and nature, and hope to avert
environmental disaster.
MichaelPNelsonisanassociateprofessor
ofenvironmentalethicsatMichigan
StateUniversityandco-authorof
American Indian Environmental Ethics:
An Ojibwa Case Study.JohnAVucetichis
anassistantprofessorofanimalecology
atMichiganTechnologicalUniversityand
co-leadsresearchonthewolvesand
mooseofIsleRoyale,aremoteislandin
LakeSuperior.NelsonandVucetichcofoundedandco-directTheConservation
EthicsGroup,anenvironmentalethics
consultancygroup.See:www.
conservationethics.org
ECOLOGISTMarch 2009 35
5/2/09 18:22:26